'To Order' Without Mentioning Named Entity In Sea Waybill

The forum is dedicated to all who deals with LCs. Please share your experiences, problems and opinions with us. You are requested to be confined to LC related issues only. Let us together discover the beauty of Letter of Credit. Thank and regards – admin; besttradesolution.com
Post Reply
Ashad
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:25 am
First Name: Hafiz
Last Name: Al Ashad
Organization: AB Bank Limited
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4

'To Order' Without Mentioning Named Entity In Sea Waybill

Post by Ashad » Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:41 am

A credit requires a non-negotiable sea waybill to evidence that goods are consigned '' to the order'' of
without naming the entity. Which one of the following is correct?

I. straight cosigned to issuing bank without mentioning ''to the order of''
II. consigned to the order of issuing bank.
III. straight cosigned to applicant without mentioning ''to the order of''
IV. Consigned to the order of applicant.

A. I and III B. I and IV C III and IV D. All of the above

Ans. A

Justification:

ISBP F11) c. When a credit requires a non-negotiable sea waybill to evidence that goods are consigned “to order” without naming the entity to whose order the goods are to be consigned, it is to indicate that the goods are consigned to either the issuing bank or the applicant, without the need to mention the words “to order”.
My questioA credit requires a non-negotiable sea waybill to evidence that goods are consigned '' to the order'' of
without naming the entity. Which one of the following is correct?

I. straight cosigned to issuing bank without mentioning ''to the order of''
II. consigned to the order of issuing bank.
III. straight cosigned to applicant without mentioning ''to the order of''
IV. Consigned to the order of applicant.

A. I and III B. I and IV C III and IV D. All of the above

Ans. A

Justification:

ISBP F11) c. When a credit requires a non-negotiable sea waybill to evidence that goods are consigned “to order” without naming the entity to whose order the goods are to be consigned, it is to indicate that the goods are consigned to either the issuing bank or the applicant, without the need to mention the words “to order”.
My question is what should be the right answer. A or D? If D, how?

mano
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:07 am
First Name: ahmed
Last Name: rabea
Organization: societe generale
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Egypt

Non negotiable sea way bill

Post by mano » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:36 am

Dear,
Answer a is correct due to the fact and nature of the document which is non negotiable document which means in transport document it is not a document of title and can not be endorsed and transfer title from one person to another like quasi negotiable bill of lading
This kind of transport document is used in short journey where no need to wait for quasi negotiable bill of blading to be presented you can release the goods without presenting the original document by simple formal identification to the shipping agent at destination
As above no need to indicate it is 'to order' and even if the credit wrongly drafted with this clause the document that is presented with straight consignment will be accepted you can find details under isbp 745 f11 a,b and c
So answer a is more appropriate than answer d
regards

User avatar
anwar018
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:55 am
First Name: Anwar
Last Name: Hossain
Organization: AB Bank Limited
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Bangladesh

"To Order" not specifically prohibited in Sea Waybill

Post by anwar018 » Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:02 pm

Well,
I think the more appropriate answer is D.
.
I would like to draw your kind attention some words in ISBP 11) c. When a credit requires a non-negotiable sea waybill to evidence that goods are consigned “to order” without naming the entity to whose order the goods are to be consigned, it is to indicate that the goods are consigned to either the issuing bank or the applicant, without the need to mention the words “to order”.
.....let see the phrase "without the need" it is not the prohibition of use the words "to order". It suggesting not to use but it can be use if credit requres. So, you can use the words "to order" or you can ignore the words in non-negotiable sea waybill even though the credit required.
Now, could you please tell me that can you raise discrepany if the consignor use the words "to order" in the non-negotiable sea waybill? ....... I think no, because ISBP 11) c. not prohibited it. ISBP only shows you the way that if you wish not to use the words "to order", you can do it and it'll not be discrepancy since it is non-negotiable sea waybill.

any comment will be welcome...

User avatar
picant
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:49 pm

Without mentioning..

Post by picant » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:44 am

Hi Pals,

I think that the you interpretation is not correct.
I am no native speaker but it seems to me that the sentence refers to the fact that it may be consigned to issuing bank
without stating to the order, so straight consigned.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao

User avatar
gegeeee
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 5:50 pm
First Name: Gega CITF, CDCS
Last Name: Topadze
Organization: Bank of Georgia
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia

Agree picant

Post by gegeeee » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:17 pm

I agree with Picant.

It should be consigned to applicant or issuing bank, but here in option 2 and 4 we have the word ''to the order'', so answer A is correct.

RAHULCH
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:56 am
First Name: RAHUL
Last Name: CHANDRAN
Organization: BANK
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: INDIA

to order

Post by RAHULCH » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:57 am

a non negotiable sea way bill ... evn though LC states TO ORDER.. does not require to be stated 'TO ORDER"


ans is definitely "A"

hardy2175
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:23 pm
First Name: hardy
Last Name: singh
Organization: bank
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4

TO ORDER NON NEGOTIABLE

Post by hardy2175 » Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:49 pm

The use of ' TO ORDER ' in a non negotiable document is superfluous and has no meaning and the use should be avoided causing unnecessary confusion.

kishorp
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 3:49 pm
First Name: kishor
Last Name: kishor
Organization: chemical industry
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: india

Post by kishorp » Fri May 19, 2017 11:57 am

I. straight cosigned to issuing bank without mentioning ''to the order of''

Dear friends i have a question
Seaway bill is non negotiable transport doc then how will it work in the case it is issued streight consigned to issuing bank
How will bl be transfer to importer
How importer will get custom clearance

LOAN
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:33 pm
First Name: LUCIA
Last Name: FRANCIS
Organization: D BANK
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: VIETNAM

Post by LOAN » Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:55 pm

The answer is A.

Post Reply